I don't follow. What is the connection between voluntary work and a safety incentive scheme?

To clarify - this IS an incentive scheme, we just offer staff the opportunity to increase their engagement with the charity (and thus the incentive) by seeing the work that charity does in their own community (otherwise it can be a lost promise "we'll donate x amount to a charity you may or may not know but trust us, it does a great job" and momentum will drop) The link in my eyes is very strong - H&S is a commitment to staff and your workplace, a large part of your companies CSR activity is a commitment to your local community, many of your staff will herald from those communities, so linking them up with an initiative that demonstrates both of these commitments is a positive.

I was providing some clarification over my post, as it seems there was some confusion (my fault for lack of clarity). I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I'm also fairly sure I haven't 'predicted the beliefs' of anyone, for feedback purposes I was responding to Ray's post with clarification and now I'm awaiting a response which may or may not stimulate further conversation - the basis of a discussion no? Maybe as 'super forum user' you should focus on providing said feedback to stimulate discussion than trying to throw the outdated rule book at me!

Kieran - if you look at the box under your name on the left hand side, you will see 'Rank: Super forum user' You will also note that the original poster is 'New forum user'. The former indicates someone who has posted more than 300 messages to the forum. The latter, someone who has posted fewer than 10 (I think). Please be friendly to new forum users.

Mencap May I apologise on behalf of the majority of forum users for some of the less helpful replies Surprisingly most of us here try to be friendly and helpful - hope you stick around.

Now that the dust has settled, can I ask Mencap Safety to give examples of cost-saving from this scheme? I've had to read the initial post several times and I'm trying to inderstand how improving safety saves money if donations (i.e. cost incurred) per near miss reported, per Toolbox Talk attended, per hazard fixed by management. Please explain what I don't understand :o/ who is donating to who?

Mencap Transco developed its Safety Challenge initiative with Mencap where a reduction in lost time injuries led to payments to Mencap of around £2.4 million - half the amount saved by the reduction - as LTIs dropped by over 80%. As far as I was aware the initiative was internal – did Mencap provide advice on accident reduction? There is a general wariness about linking incentives to accident reductions as it can encourage under reporting of incidents if not well thought out. There is nothing wrong in principle with trying to develop a safety initiative so long as it does not encourage under-reporting but I’m not sure what it is that can be seen as an investment or a business fee. Numerous organisations have worked with charities as part of a community initiative not necessarily linked to a safety issue. In a railway company I worked with over a three year period I became waterlogged with Macmillian coffee events which raised considerable sums over the period concerned. Although I don’t know how it continued, while I was there many employees got involved and communications from Macmillan on a regular basis kept employees informed of activities. There was no linkage to safety. Given that one of the biggest workplace health issues is occupational stress, rather than accidents, this issue may be one in which a corporate approach with organisations could be developed. As an aside I would be wary of promoting companies in the construction industry who were caught ‘red handed’ establishing, financing, supporting and using an illegal blacklist of over 3,200 construction workers. Many of the blacklisted workers ended up on the list because they raised health and safety issues. For example, at the Parliamentary Scottish Affairs Select Committee on the 5th March 2013 it was revealed that: ‘Skanska checked the names of 66,000 people hoping to work on its UK projects against a blacklist between 2005 and 2009, the firm’s executive vice president of human resources Harvey Francis has said.’ Source: www.building.co.uk/news/...lacklist/5051326.article NigelB

Nigel, thanks for the feedback. We developed the initiative originally with Transco and supported them to deliver it internally. We then trademarked the initiative and took it to other companies. This actually leads me onto the other points you make - it's our tailored support for firms to implement the initiative internally which we believe makes it a business service. We sit down with each partner to understand their current internal approach and then develop and deliver a comms plan to get the message out to staff. Part of this would be ensuring we are clear in conveying what constitutes a near miss, and making staff aware that a donation will only be made once the near miss or hazard has been fixed - to counter "we've run out of toilet roll, please donate £5 to Mencap" Our support throughout ranges from a dedicated account manager, roadshows and presentations for staff to get to know Mencap and what we do, content for internal comms, extra incentives for staff (tickets to events etc.), dedicated account manager, volunteering opportunities for staff to see impact of the companies donation, national and regional PR support from Mencap throughout partnership. We invest a lot in making sure the initiative works for the company and we've had years of successful experience in engaging staff with our cause, so we see this as an asset worth investing in! As a side note - not sure about the Skanska story, everyone has their blemishes, but they've been extremely generous to us over the years and do a lot of great work for people with a learning disability.

Achrn 1 In post#1 Mencap mentioned Skanska which is why I specifically referred to them. 2 Large companies can have conflicting approaches in different parts of their organisation despite trying to maintain consistency. However many people - including myself - find the blacklisting of workers unacceptable, especially if one of the reasons for listing is for raising health and safety problems. 3 I listened to many senior representatives from construction companies talk about 'drinking in the last chance saloon' at the high profile Construction Summit in 2001 in the Queen Elizabeth II centre in Westminster and the need to change the 'culture' within the sector. One of the outcomes was the Respect for People initiative. How ironic that this should run in parallel with 42 construction running and using an illegal blacklisting operation. Some respect!! 4 I don't recall saying any company was 'evil'. Blacklisting is an illegal activity and the 42 companies involved are listed on the Information Commissioner's website. My point to Mencap was in relation to those companies (42) - which includes Skanska. Establishing a Safety Challenge initiative within a company that was caught using an illegal blacklisting service is a curious way of encouraging worker involvement, given that raising safety issues was a reason for being blacklisted. 5 There are many great initiatives that have been run by construction companies who do not use blacklisting providers, as well as the construction sector as a whole. A review of the research done on the Olympic Park just highlights this. Indeed having been an original member of the HSE's Working Well Together Steering Group I am aware of many great things done by construction companies. This only contributes to the frustration about those who treat workers with contempt. Do you think that blacklisting workers for raising safety issues and depriving them of a living in the construction sector is just a 'blemish' as indicated by Mencap? Cheers. Nigel

Nigel, I'm not implying that whatever it is Skanska have done is right or wrong, I just fail to see how it has much to do with discussing the merits and usefulness of incentive initiatives as models for improving hazard reporting and safety cultures? It's a little off point, is my point... Maybe you could set up a different thread to debate the blacklisting issue? It sounds as though some think that incentive initiatives should be internal programmes run solely by the company , and then the money is just donated to a chosen charity? If so, what would people need to see to be convinced that Mencap, as an external party, could help you implement our own initiative?